BuzzH
Well-known member
Yeah, actually I do want to start comparing some things...and we'll start with who's sponsoring HR1581 and why.
HR 1581 and the RMEF
- Thread starter RockyDog
- Start date
Black Hills
Member
Go for it........
Rat Fink
Member
This is gonna get really good. RMEF lost a member in me. My best elk hunting is in a WSA. I would really hate to lose it whether it be at the hands of Tester or this bill.
lamdilligaf
Member
Man you're slow sometimes. How many times do I have to explain my first post to Rocky Dogdick? Did you not read that I said I agree with you regarding the NRAs involvement in issues like this?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Blackhills,
I wonder...just wonder if theres any oil and gas reserves in those WSA's?
I wonder if any oil and gas companies contribute to any campaigns of those listed as sponsors?
I also wonder if maybe, just maybe those same companies contribute money to the RMEF?
I wonder if, right on the heels of HR1581, Sen. Barrasso introduces legislation to repeal NEPA requirements is just by chance? You know, NEPA, the thing that the RMEF is ASSURING all of us is how we'll make sure that correct science happens on these WSA's and inventoried roadless when they're slammed into "multiple abuse" designation.
Its all just a coininkidink....
lamdilligaf,
Have you written the NRA and told them to oppose HR1581 and to stay out of land managment issues? You should, you're in agreement and you are a member. They should care about their membership.
I wonder...just wonder if theres any oil and gas reserves in those WSA's?
I wonder if any oil and gas companies contribute to any campaigns of those listed as sponsors?
I also wonder if maybe, just maybe those same companies contribute money to the RMEF?
I wonder if, right on the heels of HR1581, Sen. Barrasso introduces legislation to repeal NEPA requirements is just by chance? You know, NEPA, the thing that the RMEF is ASSURING all of us is how we'll make sure that correct science happens on these WSA's and inventoried roadless when they're slammed into "multiple abuse" designation.
Its all just a coininkidink....
lamdilligaf,
Have you written the NRA and told them to oppose HR1581 and to stay out of land managment issues? You should, you're in agreement and you are a member. They should care about their membership.
Last edited:
Carrion Carrier
Member
I strongly agree with this post and have let my RMEF membership expire.
I remember a Bugle story a few years ago where a bowhunter was recalling an experience he had during the rut. He stated that hearing an elk bugle gave him a primal feeling that made the hair on the back of his neck stand on end. Then the next sentence randomly went on how wolves are going to take that sound and feeling away from the woods. I just couldn't help but think about the people that have had that same experience with a wolf howl. I know I have.
Think what you want about wolves. That's not the point of my post. The point is that the RMEF is a good organization, but chases money and sometimes works against the interest of elk to get paid.
Black Hills
Member
Buzz,
This is not just about oil companies. You have a liberal slant going here and I could care less about your politics. Two can play this game........who is giving Barbara Boxer money to chair her Senate committee and promote the radical environmental cause.
Gee do ya suppose Defenders, CBD, Earthjustice, Sierra Club are opposing this because they want better wilderness hunting? Maybe, just maybe this is one more way they get their foot farther in the door to strangle hunting to a slow death. Wakeup.
So you support stalling the process of declaring these lands wilderness appropriate instead of using the system to get some resolve. Oh wait, I know where I have seen those stall tactics before; from Defenders, CBD, Earthjustice, Sierra Club...........oh now I get where you stand. We have seen this method in the wolf issue for the last 15 years from the enviros.
Get off your conspiracy crap and get on with using the system. If the system needs fixing, then let's fix it. Don't play games, be a big boy. That is how this country got into the mess we are in now. People need to sit down like adults and fix the problems.
This is not just about oil companies. You have a liberal slant going here and I could care less about your politics. Two can play this game........who is giving Barbara Boxer money to chair her Senate committee and promote the radical environmental cause.
Gee do ya suppose Defenders, CBD, Earthjustice, Sierra Club are opposing this because they want better wilderness hunting? Maybe, just maybe this is one more way they get their foot farther in the door to strangle hunting to a slow death. Wakeup.
So you support stalling the process of declaring these lands wilderness appropriate instead of using the system to get some resolve. Oh wait, I know where I have seen those stall tactics before; from Defenders, CBD, Earthjustice, Sierra Club...........oh now I get where you stand. We have seen this method in the wolf issue for the last 15 years from the enviros.
Get off your conspiracy crap and get on with using the system. If the system needs fixing, then let's fix it. Don't play games, be a big boy. That is how this country got into the mess we are in now. People need to sit down like adults and fix the problems.
sweetnectar
New member
Does that mean your best hunting is in real wilderness or forest service land that was once logged or protected from fire or had a road cut into it or close to it that now is closed to motored vehicles so the hunting is good for you?
And....TJones, that is just the tip of the iceberg on public opinion of WSA.
Black Hills
Member
Sweet,
Amen to your thread. Additionally, could these WSAs become better for wildlife if they were managed for habitat enhancement? There is nothing that says these lands will be developed or otherwise. It is a fact that there many more lands that are managed (private & public) that offer better habitat for wildlife.
Hunters can fix our own issues if hunters will work together and stop dumping on one another over ideology.
Amen to your thread. Additionally, could these WSAs become better for wildlife if they were managed for habitat enhancement? There is nothing that says these lands will be developed or otherwise. It is a fact that there many more lands that are managed (private & public) that offer better habitat for wildlife.
Hunters can fix our own issues if hunters will work together and stop dumping on one another over ideology.
RockyDog
Member
The problem with evaluating elk hunting in wilderness is that you have to include those big places like the bob marshall complex and the beartooth where there are zillions of outfitters shooting all the elk with rifles during rut.
And then you have wyoming who has actually does lock non-resident hunters out of the wilderness, the one place that anti-wilderness ad naseum statement is true.
And then you have wyoming who has actually does lock non-resident hunters out of the wilderness, the one place that anti-wilderness ad naseum statement is true.
sweetnectar
New member
Buzz....what protections are already in place that prevent oil and gas development? and what kind of oil and gas reserves do you think exists under granite?
What I mean is we all could brush up on a simple geology lesson and realize that oil and gas isn't under granite and we also should be aware as to what protections currently exist...an area that I lack in understanding....perhaps someone can help educate us on the laws and possible reserves in these areas before we hit the panic button. My understanding of WSA are that they are usually in mountainous areas where igneous and metamorphic rock structures are prevalent if not located very shallow under the surface. Perhaps hard rock mining is a bigger risk than oil and gas development to these areas.
WV Hunter
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,763
Ben Long
Well-known member
I have left several phone messages for the CEO and COO at RMEF. No word back. But i did see their "formal statement" supporting 1581, and i read the bill carefully myself. The statement from RMEF was so rife with errors that I can't believe it came from the RMEF shop. For example, it mixes up roadless areas and wilderness areas and says you can't have prescribed burns, spray weeds, or use chainsaws in roadless areas. That's nonsense. RMEF is destroying its own credibility. This bill will remove the protections from 10s of millions of acres of roadless national forests, most of which provide the best elk hunting around. That's the bottom line. As a longtime member, I sure wish I had a credible explanation of what RMEF thinks it's doing.
BuzzH
Well-known member
sweetnectar,
You need to think big-picture. Many of the WSA's are located outside Montana, and many are on BLM lands, right close to massive oil development areas.
In case you havent read the news lately, energy development is a pretty big deal right now.
Blackhills, no I dont want the process delayed in declaring all WSA's either wilderness or maintained as roadless. I just dont like the RMEF's idea of turning them into roads, oil pads, cutting all the timber, and allowing atv's on every acre.
Which is exactly what "multiple use" has gotten us on most BLM and a lot of the FS lands in MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, ID, etc.
You also need to brush up on the wolf issue, Wyoming and its Republican endorsed BS is what caused all the problems with wolf delisting and drug it out for 10 years. Most on this site are well aware of that simple fact. During about 9 years of that, the RMEF sat back and didnt do squat about it either.
You are clueless.
You need to think big-picture. Many of the WSA's are located outside Montana, and many are on BLM lands, right close to massive oil development areas.
In case you havent read the news lately, energy development is a pretty big deal right now.
Blackhills, no I dont want the process delayed in declaring all WSA's either wilderness or maintained as roadless. I just dont like the RMEF's idea of turning them into roads, oil pads, cutting all the timber, and allowing atv's on every acre.
Which is exactly what "multiple use" has gotten us on most BLM and a lot of the FS lands in MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, ID, etc.
You also need to brush up on the wolf issue, Wyoming and its Republican endorsed BS is what caused all the problems with wolf delisting and drug it out for 10 years. Most on this site are well aware of that simple fact. During about 9 years of that, the RMEF sat back and didnt do squat about it either.
You are clueless.
Last edited:
Black Hills
Member
Ben, you need to be accurate. You are interpreting what you want to see. RMEF's release does not state
"For example, it mixes up roadless areas and wilderness areas and says you can't have prescribed burns, spray weeds, or use chainsaws in roadless areas."
Not once does it say you can't do such in a roadless area. It does state that such management techniques are often good for the land and habitat. Never let the facts get in the way of your version of the story. What other errors is it so "rife" with?
The bill does not remove protection of anything. It calls for making decisions.
"For example, it mixes up roadless areas and wilderness areas and says you can't have prescribed burns, spray weeds, or use chainsaws in roadless areas."
Not once does it say you can't do such in a roadless area. It does state that such management techniques are often good for the land and habitat. Never let the facts get in the way of your version of the story. What other errors is it so "rife" with?
The bill does not remove protection of anything. It calls for making decisions.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Blackhills,
You havent even read the bill...if only obviously.
Hows the kool-aid?
You havent even read the bill...if only obviously.
Hows the kool-aid?
Black Hills
Member
Buzz,
Again your rhetoric. RMEF has never promoted such and you know it. You say you don't want the process delayed yet you do nothing to make it work. The vast majority of BLM and FS lands are not under development either, another fabrication.
Wyoming was only a small part of the wolf issue and in the end you will see that Wyoming is going to get exactly what they stood up for. Too bad Montana and Idaho didn't have the fortitude to do the same thing. I would love to see wolves allowed in only a small portion of MT like WY got.
You don't like the Republicans, well that is one thing we can agree on 100%. But I don't like the Democrats either.........there isn't a hill of beans difference anymore.
Again your rhetoric. RMEF has never promoted such and you know it. You say you don't want the process delayed yet you do nothing to make it work. The vast majority of BLM and FS lands are not under development either, another fabrication.
Wyoming was only a small part of the wolf issue and in the end you will see that Wyoming is going to get exactly what they stood up for. Too bad Montana and Idaho didn't have the fortitude to do the same thing. I would love to see wolves allowed in only a small portion of MT like WY got.
You don't like the Republicans, well that is one thing we can agree on 100%. But I don't like the Democrats either.........there isn't a hill of beans difference anymore.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Blackhills, heres the text of the bill, follow along if you can.
H.R.1581 -- Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)
HR 1581 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1581
To release wilderness study areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management that are not suitable for wilderness designation from continued management as de facto wilderness areas and to release inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System that are not recommended for wilderness designation from the land use restrictions of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule and the 2005 State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Final Rule, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 15, 2011
Mr. MCCARTHY of California (for himself, Mr. MCKEON, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. NUNES, Mr. DENHAM, Mrs. NOEM, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. HERGER, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. HELLER, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. TIPTON, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. LABRADOR, Mr. CALVERT, and Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To release wilderness study areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management that are not suitable for wilderness designation from continued management as de facto wilderness areas and to release inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System that are not recommended for wilderness designation from the land use restrictions of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule and the 2005 State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Final Rule, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011'.
SEC. 2. RELEASE OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AS NOT SUITABLE FOR WILDERNESS DESIGNATION.
(a) Release- Congress finds and directs that the public lands described in subsection (b) have been adequately studied for wilderness designation pursuant to section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782) and are no longer subject to the requirement of subsection (c) of such section pertaining to the management of wilderness study areas in a manner that does not impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.
(b) Covered Public Lands- Subsection (a) applies to public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) that--
(1) have not been designated as wilderness by an Act of Congress before the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) have been identified by the Bureau of Land Management before the date of the enactment of this Act as not suitable for wilderness designation.
(c) Management- Public lands released by subsection (a) shall be managed by the Bureau of Land Management in accordance with the land use plan applicable to the lands developed pursuant to section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712).
(d) Prohibition- The Secretary of the Interior may not promulgate or issue any system-wide regulation, directive, or order that would direct management of the public lands released by subsection (a) in a manner contrary to the applicable land use plan.
(e) Termination of Applicability of Wildlands Order- Wildlands order 3310 shall not apply with respect to the public lands released by subsection (a).
SEC. 3. RELEASE OF INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS WITHIN THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM NOT RECOMMENDED FOR WILDERNESS DESIGNATION.
(a) Release- Congress finds and directs that the National Forest System lands described in subsection (b) have been adequately studied for wilderness designation pursuant to the second roadless area review and evaluation program (RARE II) and the land and resource management plan revision process under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) and are no longer subject to management to maintain the roadless character and values of the lands and comply with other land-use restrictions of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule contained in part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, and amended in the final rule and record of decision published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244), and the final rule and record of decision published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 25654).
(b) Covered National Forest System Lands- Subsection (a) applies to inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System set forth in the maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, that--
(1) have not been designated as wilderness by an Act of Congress before the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) were not recommended for designation as wilderness as a result of the second roadless area review and evaluation program (RARE II) or the subsequent revision of a land and resource management plan under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
(c) Management- National Forest System lands released by subsection (a) shall be managed by the Forest Service under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) in accordance with the land and resource management plan developed for the unit of the National Forest System containing the lands.
(d) Prohibition- The Secretary of Agriculture may not promulgate or issue any system-wide regulation, directive, or order that would direct management of the National Forest System lands released by subsection (a) in a manner contrary to the applicable land and resource management plan.
(e) Termination of Applicability of Amendments- The amendments made to part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, in the final rule and record of decision published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244), and the final rule and record of decision published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 25654), shall not apply with respect to the National Forest System lands released by subsection (a).
Some things of interest, nearly all sponsors are pro-development, pro-oil, and against the idea of public lands at all. You know, that pesky public land where most all hunters, campers, anglers, bird watchers, etc. etc. like to recreate in.
Also, this bill is a complete misrepresentation and an abuse of the "process" you say you're in favor of. Most all the areas in question were already defined as having wilderness attributes under RARE II, exactly as I already fuggin' told you in an earlier post. Its congresses fault for dragging their feet and opposing the will of the public to designate most all of it as wilderness as it clearly meets the definition. All those areas are primarily defined as areas of at least 5,000 acres and largely free from roads, which most of them absolutely are. Can you even tell me when the last time congress declared a new wilderness area?
You're trying to make a feeble attempt to blame the "enviros' for these areas not being designated. Why would an environmentalist stall the process to get them included in wilderness, something they've wanted since RAREII...hell lets be honest, since 1964?
What you're saying doesnt make sense, in fact, nothing you've stated in this thread does.
How anyone that supposedly hunts elk can claim that wilderness is crap is a pure mystery. Even when a vast majority on this thread are telling you something very different.
I wonder why you're the lone ranger fighting this one?
Also, explain how "releasing" lands from de facto wilderness is not opening it up to potential development?
If you're naive enough to believe that most of the lands in question wont be developed if released...you're a fool.
H.R.1581 -- Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)
HR 1581 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1581
To release wilderness study areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management that are not suitable for wilderness designation from continued management as de facto wilderness areas and to release inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System that are not recommended for wilderness designation from the land use restrictions of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule and the 2005 State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Final Rule, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 15, 2011
Mr. MCCARTHY of California (for himself, Mr. MCKEON, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. NUNES, Mr. DENHAM, Mrs. NOEM, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. HERGER, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. HELLER, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. TIPTON, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. LABRADOR, Mr. CALVERT, and Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To release wilderness study areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management that are not suitable for wilderness designation from continued management as de facto wilderness areas and to release inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System that are not recommended for wilderness designation from the land use restrictions of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule and the 2005 State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Final Rule, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011'.
SEC. 2. RELEASE OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AS NOT SUITABLE FOR WILDERNESS DESIGNATION.
(a) Release- Congress finds and directs that the public lands described in subsection (b) have been adequately studied for wilderness designation pursuant to section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782) and are no longer subject to the requirement of subsection (c) of such section pertaining to the management of wilderness study areas in a manner that does not impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.
(b) Covered Public Lands- Subsection (a) applies to public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) that--
(1) have not been designated as wilderness by an Act of Congress before the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) have been identified by the Bureau of Land Management before the date of the enactment of this Act as not suitable for wilderness designation.
(c) Management- Public lands released by subsection (a) shall be managed by the Bureau of Land Management in accordance with the land use plan applicable to the lands developed pursuant to section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712).
(d) Prohibition- The Secretary of the Interior may not promulgate or issue any system-wide regulation, directive, or order that would direct management of the public lands released by subsection (a) in a manner contrary to the applicable land use plan.
(e) Termination of Applicability of Wildlands Order- Wildlands order 3310 shall not apply with respect to the public lands released by subsection (a).
SEC. 3. RELEASE OF INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS WITHIN THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM NOT RECOMMENDED FOR WILDERNESS DESIGNATION.
(a) Release- Congress finds and directs that the National Forest System lands described in subsection (b) have been adequately studied for wilderness designation pursuant to the second roadless area review and evaluation program (RARE II) and the land and resource management plan revision process under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) and are no longer subject to management to maintain the roadless character and values of the lands and comply with other land-use restrictions of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule contained in part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, and amended in the final rule and record of decision published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244), and the final rule and record of decision published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 25654).
(b) Covered National Forest System Lands- Subsection (a) applies to inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System set forth in the maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, that--
(1) have not been designated as wilderness by an Act of Congress before the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) were not recommended for designation as wilderness as a result of the second roadless area review and evaluation program (RARE II) or the subsequent revision of a land and resource management plan under section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
(c) Management- National Forest System lands released by subsection (a) shall be managed by the Forest Service under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) in accordance with the land and resource management plan developed for the unit of the National Forest System containing the lands.
(d) Prohibition- The Secretary of Agriculture may not promulgate or issue any system-wide regulation, directive, or order that would direct management of the National Forest System lands released by subsection (a) in a manner contrary to the applicable land and resource management plan.
(e) Termination of Applicability of Amendments- The amendments made to part 294 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, in the final rule and record of decision published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244), and the final rule and record of decision published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 25654), shall not apply with respect to the National Forest System lands released by subsection (a).
Some things of interest, nearly all sponsors are pro-development, pro-oil, and against the idea of public lands at all. You know, that pesky public land where most all hunters, campers, anglers, bird watchers, etc. etc. like to recreate in.
Also, this bill is a complete misrepresentation and an abuse of the "process" you say you're in favor of. Most all the areas in question were already defined as having wilderness attributes under RARE II, exactly as I already fuggin' told you in an earlier post. Its congresses fault for dragging their feet and opposing the will of the public to designate most all of it as wilderness as it clearly meets the definition. All those areas are primarily defined as areas of at least 5,000 acres and largely free from roads, which most of them absolutely are. Can you even tell me when the last time congress declared a new wilderness area?
You're trying to make a feeble attempt to blame the "enviros' for these areas not being designated. Why would an environmentalist stall the process to get them included in wilderness, something they've wanted since RAREII...hell lets be honest, since 1964?
What you're saying doesnt make sense, in fact, nothing you've stated in this thread does.
How anyone that supposedly hunts elk can claim that wilderness is crap is a pure mystery. Even when a vast majority on this thread are telling you something very different.
I wonder why you're the lone ranger fighting this one?
Also, explain how "releasing" lands from de facto wilderness is not opening it up to potential development?
If you're naive enough to believe that most of the lands in question wont be developed if released...you're a fool.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Blackhills,
I spend more than just a little time in the field, both professionally and for recreation.
You telling me that a majority of BLM and FS is not developed, used for extractive uses, roaded, etc. is a fuggin' joke.
A long hike these days from a place you cant drive some sort of machine (other than wilderness) is 3-4 miles...and I dont care if its MT, ID, CO, NM, AZ, UT, etc.
Been there done that for the last 20 years.
I spend more than just a little time in the field, both professionally and for recreation.
You telling me that a majority of BLM and FS is not developed, used for extractive uses, roaded, etc. is a fuggin' joke.
A long hike these days from a place you cant drive some sort of machine (other than wilderness) is 3-4 miles...and I dont care if its MT, ID, CO, NM, AZ, UT, etc.
Been there done that for the last 20 years.
